Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state that again please? Mr. STOMBAUGH. The photograph on the left was taken approximately at 100 diameters. Mr. EISENBERG. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample. Mr. EISENBERG. And the one on the right? Mr. STOMBAUGH. The one on the right was taken at approximately 400 diameters. Mr. DULLES. This is the blanket sample? Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a hair from the blanket compared with Oswald's. Mr. EISENBERG. You have three photographs on this chart, of which two are known Oswald hairs, the photograph on the left and one of the two photographs on the right? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Actually, this is one photograph taken through a comparison microscope. We are looking at two different hairs at the same time. Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Well, when you say this is one photograph you are pointing to the one on the right but, as I understand it, the photograph on the right shows two different hairs? Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Mr. EISENBERG. One of which is Oswald's hair, a known sample? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mr. EISENBERG. And the other of which was obtained from the blanket? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mr. EISENBERG. And the photograph on the left shows known samples of Oswald's pubic hairs? Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Mr. EISENBERG. So we have in effect two views of Oswald's pubic hairs, one on the left and one half of the composite photograph on the right? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. Mr. EISENBERG. Following up on Mr. Dulles' question, the photograph on the right seems to have a much coarser and somewhat darker structure in both the known and the questioned sample than the photograph on the left, which is simply a known sample. Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Mr. EISENBERG. And you said that was because of the enlargement? Mr. STOMBAUGH. The difference in the enlargement. The photograph on the left was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 100 times. The photograph on the right was taken with the microscope set to magnify the specimen 400 times. Mr. EISENBERG. The photograph on the right does not seem to show a hair four times larger, so I don't understand it. Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was on the enlarging of the photograph itself. Had these two prints been enlarged at the same enlarging factor, the hairs on the left, would be much, much smaller than the ones on the right. This was just blown up to this size so the hairs could be seen. For instance, had we not blown these up, here we see them magnified 400 times, and this other photograph is a natural shot. Mr. EISENBERG. Now, here you are pointing to photograph 669, and the second shot which you call "natural" is 668? Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. You can see the difference in the diameter and the difference in the detail of the photograph.